STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MUNIRDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 8 -5 -1978 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Deedwana after obtaining leave from this Court. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Magistrate, had acquitted the respondents Munir Deen, D.D. Charan and R.D. Gujar of the charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) A complaint was filed in the court to the effect that on 29 -8 -1974 Food Inspector Shri Hari Krishan inspected shop No. 55 at Ladnu where the respondents were selling wheat. On suspecting the wheat to be adulterated the Food Inspector took sample and conducted all the necessary formalities. Out of the three bottles containing the sample one was given to Munir Deen. One of the bottles containing the sample was sent to Public Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the wheat was adulterated as it contained sand dust and pieces of stones and was also damaged by ants. After obtaining sanction from the Administrator Municipality, Ladnu complaint was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. The learned Magistrate charge sheeted the respondents for the offence under Section 16 of the Act and recorded the plea. On all of them denying the allegation, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. The Food Inspector examined himself and two more witnesses, namely, Bheekamchand and Shreepal to substantiate the prosecution case. All the three respondents in their statement under Section 313 Cr. PC denied the allegations levelled against them. Munir Deen took the plea that the wheat in question was supplied to him by the other respondents and he sold the wheat as it was supplied to him. The other two respondents, while denying the allegations submitted that the wheat in question was not supplied by them and therefore they were not responsible for adulteration of wheat even if any. Munir Deen appeared as D.W. 1 to substantiate the plea taken by him. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents on the ground that the sanction of prosecuting the respondents was not according to law and the reason for this conclusion was that the sanction did not disclose that the concerned authority had applied its mind before according sanction for prosecution. The learned Magistrate in view of that finding passed the judgment of acquittal which dissatisfied the prosecution. Hence the present appeal

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sanction does not suffer from any infirmity and the finding of the trial court in that regard is erroneous.